nitromefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Bugs (Feed Me)
Separation This article is very poorly written, and very inconsistent. I think it would do better if each of these sections had their own article, so may we separate it? 00:43, February 2, 2014 (UTC) :Lol did you just fix all your spelling errors after posting the message? Yay, I'm not alone. I know the article doesn't have the best writing, but I don't know if splitting will solve this issue. 00:54, February 2, 2014 (UTC) ::@Emitewiki: you could just put at the top, and state what's wrong. What is poorly written in the article? -- 01:12, February 2, 2014 (UTC) :::Nothing is majorly wrong with it in my opinion. It might work better if the subsections Appearance and Game information were removed and each section kept as two separate paragraphs. Maybe even separating the Super Feed Me bugs from Feed Me as well could work. After all, the title of this page is "Bugs (Feed Me)", not "Bugs (Feed Me series)". 05:47, February 2, 2014 (UTC) ::::@RSK: The game name is parenthesis either refers to that one game, or if in a series, all the components in that series. Thus, it would be expected that bugs (Feed Me) contain the Super Feed Me bugs as well. -- 19:37, February 2, 2014 (UTC) Reverting back to section I've reverted the article back to individual sections for each bug because the table does not work, as the article has to cover content about Super Feed Me and this cannot be covered in a table. A table for Feed Me bugs and Super Feed Me bugs would not work as some enemies in Super Feed Me are more complex that the the Feed Me ones and putting all this information in a table would seriously stretch it. I like the Feed Me table, but it doesn't work. Of course, some may think that Super Feed Me content shouldn't be covered because it's been on hold for ages, but even though this is so Template:UpcomingObject could just be placed in sections to signify its from pre-release content. Also, a lot of the bugs in the trailer are bugs that first appeared in Feed Me, not a whole lot of new bugs. -- 18:05, June 19, 2015 (UTC) :No, no, no, no. Since when do we start creating enemy and interactive object articles for unreleased games? If that was true, we would be creating articles for the enemies of Go Pogo, Beneath the Lighthouse, and Project Jump. It is unnecessary to be writing about elements from a game that is not released yet, and most of the information for these enemies just comes from a trailer video. Plus, most of these enemies may be reworked since Nitrome said they are going to completely redo the game if they return to working on it. :I move to have this returned to a table format. 20:43, August 31, 2015 (UTC) ::No objections? (scheduling to revert it tomorrow). 04:48, September 19, 2015 (UTC) :::You can move it back to tables. However, could you fill in the "movement" section with movement related information from the Feed Me section on the current page? Because if not, then the article should not be moved back to tables since the movement information is pretty much the majority of information about the enemies. -- 14:52, September 19, 2015 (UTC) ::::Eh NOBODY, the table did have a movement section; it was just waiting for someone to add on to the article. I'm p sure that most enemies's movements can be described in 1-2 sentences so I wouldn't expect anything elaborate, just concise. Also we should really reconsider adding Super Feed Me bugs to the Feed Me bugs page considering how SFM is basically shelved and aren't we not supposed to make articles for the Super Feed Me bugs anyways since they would be from a game on hold? 19:37, September 19, 2015 (UTC) :::::Yes, take the Super Feed Me bugs off to.-- 19:42, September 19, 2015 (UTC) (reset indent) Actually, again, it didn't have Super Feed Me bugs on the table. But the one question I have before I do this is should we have the appearance section or not? Because I feel like it's kind of inconsistent with the rest of our pages if we don't. 01:20, September 20, 2015 (UTC) :RSK was fine with no appearance section and I am to. -- 02:25, September 20, 2015 (UTC) ::Yes Emite, I'm not that stupid; I was addressing NOBODY's concern. :P I think I was the one who removed the SFM bugs from the page, but one of NOBODY's reasons for removing the table was because it wouldn't be able to cover bugs from SFM. Aside from the fact that SFM is probably never gonna see the light of day, we could just split the SFM exclusive bugs into sections or something. I don't know. But the thing is, we don't have to worry about adding SFM bugs atm. 06:59, September 21, 2015 (UTC)